Talk:Viktor Prokopenya

Information for administrators
Victor Prokopenya’s page have several vandals: It could be that this is one person or several. These vandal or vandals also vandal other pages connected to Prokopenya’s page - such as: belarussian decree, the high tech park and others. I cancel the vandal editing of this page and return my editing. Some of the changes are completely vandal like “Prokopenya hates to wash his long trunk”, some of them are intelligence vandalism. I am not going to comment on exclicit vandal changes, however, I am copying here all the argumentation on the talk page I posted before, which had no arguments against it:
 * Belbrabas
 * 195.222.84.189
 * CosWelbelis
 * Columnist272.
 * 1) title Joint business with Gutseriev family –  I will change this. The section name is incorrect. This is not a joint business, only investments.
 * 2) title Attempts to acquire bank – I will change this title. Incorrect heading level and invalid section name. Prokopenya personally, not the company, was planning this deal. And it was only one attempt (singular). Not many of them (plural).
 * 3) In an interview to Tut.by, Viktor Prokopenya claimed that bank acquisition is direct and important development of his experience in IT and fintech. Later, presidential edict approving the sale of Paritetbank was abolished. However his company claimed that their focus is fintech of capital.com which develops mobile applications in sphere of finances. – 'I will change it to make more clear it.’ 3 August 2017, Prokopenya withdrew the application for the purchase of a subsidiary of Sberbank and refused to purchase Paritetbank. Later, 16 August 2017, the presidential edict approving the sale of Paritetbank was abolished (decree of the President of Belarus № 289) ninth paragraph
 * 4) title Top taxpayer of Minsk – I return the title Top taxpayer of Belarus. Some media have written that Prokopenya is the largest taxpayer of Minsk. There is lot’s of sources, confirming that Prokopenya  is the largest taxpayer of Belarus. second paragraph "Он оказывался крупнейшим налогоплательщиком-физлицом минимум пять лет из последних десяти и по уплаченной сумме лидирует в Беларуси" (He turned out to be the largest taxpayer-physical person for at least five years out of the last ten and is the leader in Belarus by the amount paid). last paragraph "Виктор Прокопеня является крупнейшим налогоплательщиком-физлицом минимум пять лет из последних десяти, и по уплаченной сумме он лидирует в Беларуси". (Victor Prokopenya is the largest taxpayer-physical person for at least five years out of the last ten and is the leader in Belarus by the amount paid)
 * 5) Prokopenya in interview to Zero Hedge claimed that he is "# 1 taxpayer" of Belarus. – This was claimed by the media, not Prokopenya «I read that in 2016, you paid the highest taxes out of any individual in Belarus» sixth question Prokopenya turned out to be the largest taxpayer who was a physical person for at least five years out of the last ten and is the person who makes the highest tax contributions in Belarus. Here is the  link, second paragraph
 * 6) title Legal and political initiatives – I return the  title  Legal and Public initiatives. Prokopenya have not initiated any political initiatives. He is a investor and businessman, not a politician. The title ‘Views’ and ‘Аccusationsis’ more compelling to the facts. [Initiative|https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initiative According] to the definition in Wikipedia, the initiative and political initiative has a different meaning. The conflict with Chaly relates to a public or political initiative? Information about followers in instagram relates to a public and political initiative?
 * 7) Viktor Prokopenya also added that he has one million followers in Instagram "because the brains are more powerful than breasts and the brains are the new tits" –  I will just delete it. This is obviously vandal edit. I have already mentioned in my previous comments that “tits”, “boobs” and other sexist jargon is not for Wikipedia. Belbrabas keeps adding this vandal changes here, which is further evidence of his bias. He refuses to explain, why this has significance for Wikipedia. The page with these ‘trash’ edits was blocked for a week from editing by the administrator EdJohnston (talk) by the request of Belbrabas.
 * 8) Prokopenya claimed that he lost 20 kilograms (44 lb) while being in detention. – I will delete it. This is not relevant, I insist on removing this. But Belbrabas constantly returns this information without explanations. The fact that the media posted this it doesn't automatically make it is a meaningful fact to be incorporated to wikipedia
 * 9) However, doubts were raised as to whether so many followers of his Instagram account are real. – I will delete it. These are not facts, but the opinion of Belbrabas. In the article to which Belbrabas  gives a link, there is no such statement.
 * 10) title Conflict with Chaly. – I will delete this title. There has been no conflict with Chaly. There has been public discussion.
 * 11) Later, Viktor Prokopenya demonstrated in his Facebook account video of virtual beating of his critic's image in augumented reality application for the smartphone developed by one of his companies –  I will delete it. According to Wikipedia, I see it as smart vandalism by Belbrabas. If you add all Olga Buzova posts on Social media to her wiki page - it will become the largest page in the Wiki.  There has been nothing publicly significant in this discussion to be mentioned in the Wikipedia. The only reason for adding all this narrative is to mention Prokopenya’s joke with a video of beating Chaly in AR app. Please, note how biased and one-sided this information is. Belbrabas mentioned only Chaly’s arguments, and none from Prokopenya. He want to make Prokopenya look like someone who can not support his point of view with arguments, but instead beats his opponent.
 * 12) title Death Penalty initiative – I will delete this title. This is not an initiative, this is the opinion of a person, expressed during KEF, public event took place in Minsk.
 * 13) In 2017, critics questioned the idealization by media of Prokopenya and the value of doctor's degree earned by Viktor Prokopenya at SBS Swiss Business School with doctoral thesis on behavioral economics. Criticts further pointed that Swiss International Institute for Management Development is more well known educational institute than SBS Swiss Business School and that it is much more easy to be admitted to non-degree qualifications executive courses rather than to full-time programs if there is no restraints in funds. – I will delete it. In fact this was Prokopenya’s discussion with someone who positions himself as an expert in EU and US education and has blog about it, and has 150  subscribers on Facebook. It looks as if this person’s main goal to start this discussion was to increase the popularity of his blog. This was a Facebook discussion, which was then published in one business media outlet - probusiness.by. It is literally duplication of the  FB discussion. It is focused on educational institutions rather than on Prokopenya. It was a subjective dialogue and it has nothing to do with an authoritative source of information.
 * 14) title Criminal prosecution – I will change this title. There were accusations, then proceedings and many publications in the media about the removal of incorrect information about the detention Prokopenya. The story of the investigation gained widespread media coverage in Belarus. At the end of 2017, Prokopenya's legal advisors approached various Belarusian media channels, including BelaPAN, BelTA, European Radio for Belarus, Narodnaja Volya, Nasha Niva, Onliner.by, Tut.By, requesting the removal or correction of old news stories which contained incorrect information. In their opinion, the legal facts in the materials were in fact incorrect.[65] Many outlets agreed that the information was incorrect and corrected the publications or deleted them, and this provoked the discussions  journalism ethics.[66][67][68] There were no trials on this matter.
 * 15) In the spring of 2015, Viktor Prokopenya was arrested by Belarusian state security service and was charged with unregistered business activity together with his partner Alexey Komok, earning profits to the sum of $650,000. –  I will delete links to Komok from it.  There are no facts to link Komok’s case  to Prokopenya’s. There has been a Supreme Court decision, stating, Komok was acting illegally on his own (individual crime). Regarding the group crime the Court ruled that there was no evidence of such. Here are the links1 links2 penultimate paragraph «Как ранее сообщалось, Прокопеню в 2015 году подозревали в уклонении от уплаты налогов. В феврале 2016 года дела были закрыты за отсутствием состава преступления — налоговая и другие проверки нарушений не выявили" (As reported, Prokopenya in 2015 was suspected of tax evasion. In February 2016, the cases were closed for lack of corpus delicti - tax and other checks did not reveal any violations).
 * 16) Prokopenya compensated inflicted monetary damages to the state and on February 2016, the criminal case was officially dismissed.  – I change it. sixth paragraph "В результате проведенной налоговыми органами проверки за период с 2005 по 2015 годы нарушений выявлено не было. Виктор Прокопеня не признавал вину в совершении каких-либо преступлений" (As a result of the audit conducted by the tax authorities for the period from 2005 to 2015, no violations were identified. Prokopenya did not plead guilty to committing any crimes. There was no damage and no compensations) 19th paragraph «...известным фактом было и то, что Виктор вину не признал. Проведенная налоговая проверка за период с 2005 по 2015 годы нарушений не выявила. Уголовные дела об уклонении от уплаты налогов были прекращены за отсутствием состава преступления. Дело о незарегистрированной предпринимательской деятельности было прекращено указом президента. Доказать, что Виктор Прокопеня получал доход от незарегистрированной рекламной деятельности в интернете, следствию не удалось» (The fact that Victor did not admit guilt was a well-known fact. The tax audit for the period from 2005 to 2015 did not reveal any violations. Criminal cases of tax evasion were terminated for lack of corpus delicti. The case of unregistered business activities was terminated by presidential decree. Prove that Victor Prokopenya received income from unregistered advertising activities on the Internet, the investigation failed). According to the principle of presumption of innocence, a person is considered innocent until his guilt is proven by law and is not established by a court sentence that has entered into legal force. Accordingly, the media also has no right to blame without a court decision.
 * 17) The story of Prokopenya arrest gained widespread media coverage in Belarus. – I will change the "arrest" to "detention".  Vandal purposefully uses wrong legal terminology, and controversial facts while describing Prokopenya’s detention. Prokopenya was detained by authorities. Some media outlets by mistake wrote that Prokopenya was arrested. Then the outlets changed it to the right term - “detention” as it was not “arrest”. WP:BLPCRIME A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law.
 * I have studied well the rules of writing biographies of contemporaries, as well as the laws of the United States applicable for Wikipedia. According to the Wiki rules, participants should be careful when adding information about contemporaries, be sensitive and strictly follow US laws. Slander (unproven information discrediting the reputation of a person) is not permitted under paragraphs 45 and 46 of the California Civil Code.
 * We must follow the laws of the United States. Slander (unproven information discrediting the reputation of a person) is not permitted under paragraph 45 and 46 of the United States Civil Code.
 * We cannot use the word "arrest" because there is no court verdict. All criminal cases were closed and all charges were dropped. We must use legal terminology very carefully.
 * Under Belarussian law,  “arrest” is used only to refer to a criminal punishment. And the criminal punishment can only be applied in the result of a sentencing, handed down through the court, following the consideration and conclusion of a criminal case. As such, the use of the term “arrest” is not correct in lieu of no court sentencing. It must be noted, however, that a “home arrest” can form part of the pre-trial period, but as far as I’m aware, this did not apply to Prokopenya. Under Art. 48 of the Belarus Criminal Code,“arrest” is the punishment applicable to a person who has committed a crime. [4]
 * We can not use terms “arrest” and “arrested” as this implies that the person is guilty - Prokopenya did not commit a crime; he did not plead guilty and there was no court sentence that found him guilty of any crime. He was detained for a period of preliminary investigation, which ended without a court trial and punishment. What Belbrabas is doing, however, is taking 2 websites which haven't changed “arrest” to “detention” and claims there was an “arrest’. There are dozens of other websites which write correct term - “detention” and there are many independent media outlets, which have corrected themselves after using the wrong [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Viktor_Prokopenya term initially].
 * All of that was mentioned in the talk section of the article, Belbrabas hasn't responded and has just vandalised the page again. He claims that tut.by and onliner.by wrote “arrest”, but this is not true - you can look at the talk page for evidence. (headline Famous IT businessman detained in Minsk).
 * There is one article on Deutsche Welle, which incorrectly uses the word arrest. In the following articles by Deutsche Welle, when describing the case they use the correct term - “detention”.
 * There is loads of evidence that I have provided to Belbrabas on the talks page of various independent credible media sources that have changed the wording from “arrest” to “detention”. This only happens when they write something incorrect.
 * Some vandals may have a personal grudge against or resentment towards certain users. These vandals should be taken more seriously, as they are motivated by a desire to harm others, and may be more persistent and/or engage in more serious types of vandalism than pettier vandals.
 * Some vandals claim to be motivated by a desire to expose, through vandalism, the truth. A vandal motivated by such a goal might, for example, add false but plausible-sounding information to an article. 可愛い (talk) 13:55, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

arrest of Prokopenya

 * I have a lot of comments on the latest version.
 * 1) On March — There has been information that it was April. So we need to say we don't know when exactly - we can say 2015 only.
 * 2) Komok business partner - no evidence. Komok is an employee. Viaden Media was owned 100% by Viktor Prokopenya at 2006-2008, so…no partners.
 * 3) arresed - not true
 * 4) charged - not true (charge is brought under court decision. Prokopenya has never been charges, as his case has not been heard at court.)
 * 5) belarussian state security service - not true ( security services usually in the plural to show cross service operations, so this would be better written “Belarusian state security services”. If kept in the singular, it requires a definite article – the – as it is referring to one particular service, rather than a general idea, and almost all singular countable nouns require an article)
 * 6) state prosecution brought charges - not true
 * 7) compensated - not true
 * 8) ten month in detention - not true
 * 9) presidential decree - not true
 * 10) business partner Komok sentensed - irrelevant
 * 11) Whitewash - not true. --ELindas (talk) 19:27, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

~ Well, well, well. It seems from your edits that you are either an employee of Viktor Prokopenya or contracted by him person. Your published here in a single edit an article with self-sourced sources on Prokopenya. Your sources include personal blog of Prokopenya which cannot be used as a source. For example, your whole sections of Prokopenya education and Prokopenya business sourced to his personal blog and sources are in violation of Wikipedia policies on reliable sources.
 * And it seems that there are no reliable third sources in support of your hilarious claims that everything is not right in Arrest section. Deutsche Welle and Vice.com are reliable third country media which were reporting on issues ranging from ISIS to internet Barbies.
 * Arrested - true - the source is given - reliable Deutsche Welle and vice.com which say "arrested". Period.
 * Charged - true - the source is given - reliable Deutsche Welle and vice.com which say "charged". You seem to trade here and confuse between charges by police and vindication by the court. Could you provide details about your legal education?
 * Belarusian state security services = KGB. If you would make an article in Wikipedia about Belarusian KGB and link Belarusian state security service articles to such article - you are welcome. But why you would delete reliable and sourced content from Wikipedia?
 * compensated - absolutely true - sources are given which are reliable.
 * whitewashing - true, sources are given.
 * Please also be notified that deletion of sourced and reliable information from the articles in Wikipedia may be considered as vandalism, and you may be banned from editing in Wikipedia if you would delete such information.


 * Okay, I got a reply which means there is a dialogue. Let's go step by step and solve all the problems one by one. Firstly, I know Prokopenya from my previous work, though it would be wrong to call me his current employee or contractor. Secondly, since I am the main author of the article, it is important for me. And the new section seems to me exaggerated and not exactly accurate. Thirdly, I agree that the work on the article shouldn’t involve hectic movements. And it will be correct to focus on the meaning of each phrase and find the exact wording for it. So let's start. First, let's deal with the question about the templates at the beginning of the page. As to "primary" sources. In the correction that you cancelled I changed the links to Prokopenya’s website to another material. There is information about his education. Are there any other links that trouble you? I will try to replace them. And what do you mean by “written like a résumé”? --ELindas (talk) 21:20, 29 January 2018 (UTC)


 * It is wrong to use the word “arrest”  in this situation. I explained this in detail in my previous comment. If you are referring to the DW article, their use was also incorrect. Further, you should note that, in an article published at a later date, they correctly used the word “detention”. Belarus, however, a person can be put in pre-trial detainment for a year or more without any decision being made by the court. 可愛い (talk) 10:15, 20 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I also added missing information regarding the reasons why the media were requested by Prokopenya’s lawyers to amend the information regarding detention. There were numerous mistakes in these articles. Some articles were using the words “jail” and “prison”, while in accordance with Belarusian law, these terms can be used only when the person is sentenced. Please see this commentary made by a practising,certified lawyer in this media publication. The use of “arrest” and “detention” as legal terms was discussed in the media and by lawyers. There even were commentaries on this particular situation by a certified lawyer, who confirmed that, from a legal standpoint, it is not correct to use the terms “arrest” and “arrested”. See here . 可愛い (talk) 10:15, 20 December 2018 (UTC)


 * The attorney I. Pankov stated that  “arrest” is used only to refer to a criminal punishment. And the criminal punishment can only be applied in the result of a sentencing, handed down through the court, following the consideration and conclusion of a criminal case. As such, the use of the term “arrest” is not correct in lieu of no court sentencing. It must be noted, however, that a “home arrest” can form part of the pre-trial period, but as far as I’m aware, this did not apply to Prokopenya. Under Art. 48 of the Belarus Criminal Code,“arrest” is the punishment applicable to a person who has committed a crime. Prokopenya did not commit crime; there was no court sentence that found him guilty of any crime. He was detained for a period of preliminary investigation, which ended without a court case and punishment. The use of the words “arrest”, “arrested” implies that Prokopenya committed a crime. 可愛い (talk) 10:15, 20 December 2018 (UTC)


 * All your legal argumentation there is not valid, since I use citation from several reliable third party sources. If you claim that Deutsche Welle and Vice News are lying, than Viktor knows what he could do. But you cannot do here Original Research and edit the article according to your original research. You may insert this funny interpretation of unknown Belarusian lawyer, whose authority is really questionable, that in the US arrest could be done only through the court. But I guess anybody who has ever seen Hollywood movies could teach this lawyer why he is wrong.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.125.107.64 (talk) 16:09, 28 December 2018 (UTC)


 * 93.125.107.64 (talk) Let me ask you - are you a lawyer - to make conclusions on whether my legal arguments are valid or not? If your legal knowledge is based on watching US movies, it is not enough to make justifications on legal issues connected with Belarusian law. If your legal knowledge is based on watching US movies, it is not enough to make justifications on legal issues connected with Belarusian law.


 * With all due respect to you, as a Wiki contributor, I need to admit, that conclusions of a  Belarus-certified attorney on the legal points are more valid and should be taken into account for editing.


 * Using the incorrect term “arrest” instead of “detention” by some media outlets resulted in the fact that many of these outlets then corrected it. Some of them even deleted articles with the incorrect term usage. Now most of them use it correctly. Here are the links.


 * One more. As I mentioned before, if you are referring to the DW article, their use was also incorrect.. Further, you should note that, in an article published at a later date, they correctly used the word “detention».


 * The article by Vice News is not a good example to justify the use of the word “arrest”, as it refers to other articles that no longer exist.  It is perfectly viable that “arrest” was also used incorrectly in those articles, and therefore the relevant publication removed the article from the public view. As such, we cannot rely on the Vice News article as proof that term “arrest” is acceptable in this situation.


 * It is absolutely vital that, when media organisations – including journalists – and Wikipedia editors write about legal issues, they use the correct legal language to do so.


 * Under Art. 48 of the Belarus Criminal Code,“arrest” is the punishment applicable to a person who has committed a crime . Prokopenya did not commit a crime; there was no court sentence that found him guilty of any crime. He was detained for a period of preliminary investigation, which ended without a court case and punishment. The use of the words “arrest”, “arrested” implies that Prokopenya committed a crime.


 * WP:BLPCRIME A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. We can not use word “arrest” or “arrested” in situations when there has been no court decision. This can be applied only to guilty people.


 * In a nutshell, there are no valid grounds to use “arrest”. If there are no new arguments from your side - make necessary changes. 可愛い (talk) 14:39, 9 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Case ended without court proceedings means nothing. Prokopenya reimbursed the damages - this info is confirmed in a variety of independent sources. Damages were paid by Prokopenya. Criminal Code of Belarus has a sole article - one ground of release from punishment - reimbursement of damages caused by crime. If you claim to be a lawyer, you should know that this could mean only one thing :)


 * The fact that Prokopenya never disclosed official resolutions closing his case - suggests that he was released from punishment, but was never acquitted. Should this ever happen - Prokopenya and his lawyers would be waiving this resolution and publishing it in every website, which is not the case.


 * Original research above by you cannot be a ground of censorship of any corrections of reliable third party sources. Belbrabas (talk) 08:02, 26 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Just one question to the sea of text above - could you provide a link to official document which says that Prokopenya wasn't found guilty? Belbrabas (talk) 08:21, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Elindas inserting fake info into the article
Obviously, Elindas is intending to whitewash well-sourced information supported by reliable independent sources.

1. Approaching media by lawyers of Prokopenya never caused discussion of right to be forgotten, as this right does not exist in Belarusian law. This fake is not supported in any article cited.

2. Elindas deletes any info on arrest and release on bail from Volodarka.

3. Why on Earth arrest and detention are named critics? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.222.84.189 (talk) 11:46, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Top taxpayer
Viktor Prokopenya became the top taxpayer of Belarus(not of Minsk) 可愛い (talk) 14:15, 13 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Source says clearly - "taxpayer of Minsk". Please carefully study sources before doing anything in Wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.222.84.189 (talk) 12:26, 11 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Prokopenya is the largest taxpayer in Belarus. This is corroborated by a number of distinct sources. Logically, the largest taxpayer of Belarus will, by default, be the largest taxpayer of Minsk. The point remains, however, that the status of ‘’the largest taxpayer in Belarus” is, in fact, more meaningful.|1|2|3 Logically, the largest taxpayer of Belarus will, by default, be the largest taxpayer of Minsk. The point remains, however, that the status of ‘’the largest taxpayer in Belarus” is, in fact, more meaningful. Articles in the media state that Prokopenya has become the largest individual taxpayer for at least five years out of the last ten. Prokopenia leads tops the list for the amount of taxes paid in Belarus.|4|5|6|7|8|9 Please ensure that you read the articles and not just the headlines. It is abundantly clear that Prokopenya is the top taxpayer in Belarus. You can use Google Translate if you cannot read the Russian language.  可愛い (talk) 13:19, 21 December 2018 (UTC)


 * "Largest taxpayer of Belarus"? Are you really serious claiming that a single natural person is paying more taxes than every legal entity in specific country? Not a single link that you provide is working. If you want to settle this let's have mediation there, mediator could be any person whose native language is Russian. Please, initiate mediation if you insist that your interpretation is valid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.125.107.64 (talk) 16:03, 28 December 2018 (UTC)


 * 93.125.107.64 Media sources say Prokopenya is the largest individual taxpayer. Legal entities - are not individuals. So I do not see problems here. All links have been double checked and work.


 * I have provided valid explanations for each of my edits in previous comments. The rollback of all my edits can be qualified as vandalism – the current version contains many factual inaccuracies and irrelevant information. I have not received a detailed explanation of the cancellation of my edits. I will wait with my edits for you to have a chance to engage in discussion with me regarding particular wordings, if you have goods grounds to disagree with them. If you do not do this, I will proceed with my edits. 可愛い (talk) 14:41, 9 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Once again, the source article heading reads "of Minsk". https://dev.by/news/viktar-prakapenya-pays-his-taxes Anyone could check it via Google translate. Belbrabas (talk) 08:05, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Update

 * Project Information has been updated. Errors in the text have been corrected. 可愛い (talk) 07:10, 14 November 2018 (UTC)


 * The article was updatedaccording to recent facts. The article was made more consistent with the Russian language version, as the majority of sources are in Russian. Information that was written in a tabloid style was deleted, as well as redundant information, not corresponding to WP:NOTEVERYTHING, WP:UNDUE. Changes were made to contribute to the neutral style of the article. Grammar changes. 可愛い (talk) 07:38, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Attempt to purchase bank
Had to delete excessive information, as added information is redundant, this includes excessive facts and commentaries, related to the deal, as well as to other bids to purchase Sberbank Ukraine. 可愛い (talk) 07:39, 14 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Prokopenya refused to buy the bank. He explained that his focus would remain with  technology projects. Cancellation of the order to sell the bank followed Prokopenya’s refusal. 可愛い (talk) 10:16, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Criticism and controversies
1. Re. education dispute. Prokopenya's education was questioned by one person in a Facebook post. The facebook discussion was then published on probusiness.by. Tiny-minority views need not be included, except in the articles devoted to them. Wikipedia is not a forum for discussions on what is the best educational program. 2. Re. conflict with S. Chaly. According to WP:BLPCOI: Wikipedia articles concerning living persons may include material—where relevant, properly weighted, and reliably sourced—about controversies or disputes in which the article subject has been involved. Wikipedia is not a forum provided for parties to off-wiki disputes to continue their hostilities. 3. Re. Instagram followers and comments that “brains are new tits”. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a tabloid outlet. 4. Re. commentaries re. restaurant. WP:NOTEVERYTHING: A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject. 可愛い (talk) 07:42, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Had to delete this section due to the following reasons:


 * All these scandals in which Prokopenya was involved received wide coverage not only in Probusiness (Tut.by), but also at Kyky.org and dev.by publications. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.222.84.189 (talk) 12:28, 11 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Let’s separate these two points here.


 * (1) Discussion re. education. in fact this was Prokopenya’s discussion with someone who positions himself as an expert in EU and US education and has blog about it, and has 150  subscribers on Facebook. It looks as if this person’s main goal to start this discussion was to increase the popularity of his blog. This was a Facebook discussion, which was then published in one business media outlet - probusiness.by. You can google translate it and read - it is literally duplication of the FB discussion. It is focused on educational institutions rather than on Prokopenya. It was a subjective dialogue and it has nothing to do with an authoritative source of information. Your point re. “numerous sources on these events including tut.by (its subsidiary probusiness), dev.by, naviny.by, udf.by” is not relevant. There was only one publication. Please, provide links from dev.by, naviny.by, udf.by, if you don’t agree. The more that you support keeping this discussion in the article the more it makes me think, that you are this person, who had discussion with Prokopenya re. education.


 * (2) Discussion re. “tits”. This discussion had 2-3 publications. None of them has critics. All of these publications just state the fact that Prokopenya wrote about that in facebook in a humorous light. If you add all Olga Buzova writes on Social media to her wiki page - it will become the largest page in the Wiki. But it is just nonsensical . I don’t understand the idea behind  including this information on wikipedia. Maybe you want to make Prokopenya look masculine by doing that? Whatever the idea is, wikipedia is not a place to praise somebody. It should include only meaningful and publically important facts. We can’t include information about every post he made on facebook to wikipedia, especially the ones which have no meaning and are only humourous. To answer this question I’ve checked Prokopenya’s facebook and I can see every time he writes a post - a lot of media publish this post. The fact that the media posted this it doesn’t automatically make it is a meaningful fact to be incorporated to wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a place to praise somebody’s popularity. It should be purely factual. All information included to wikipedia should have encyclopedical significance. 09:55, 6 January 2019 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 可愛い (talk • contribs)


 * 1) I would provide more links.
 * 2) Maybe Prokopenya behaves in such a way with his lawyers? Whatever, your personal feelings are not a ground to delete anything in WP.

Critics
WP:NOTEVERYTHING: Deleted redundant information and opinions, some not relevant to the subject of the article. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid outlet. The deletion of information raised discussion re. the right to be forgotten, due to the fact Prokopenya has EU citizenship. Viktor Prokopenya is a citizen of Belarus and pays taxes in Belarus. 可愛い (talk) 07:46, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Changed title, as sections titles need to be neutral. According to the rule WP:BLPCRIME A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. According to Wiki rules, participants should be careful when adding information about contemporaries, be sensitive and strictly follow US laws. We can not use word “arrest” or “arrested” in situations when there has been no court decision. This can be applied only to guilty people. See extensive commentaries on the situation by Belarus lawyers.
 * BLPCRIME applies to people who are not public. Prokopenya is definitely a "public figure". If the newspapers say that a person was arrested, so can Wikipedia.
 * The Wikipedia server is on American soil. "Right to be forgotten" is not an American law and doesn't apply to this Wikipedia.
 * If you want to change whitewash this article, I would suggest a wp:RfC or an wp:edit request. Jim1138 talk 08:03, 14 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Editors, let's find a consensus in editing. User talk:Jim1138-m have canceled all edits. The text has many grammatical errors and a lot of incorrect information. Can you explain why you canceled all the edits to the article? 可愛い (talk) 08:19, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 可愛い, I can't help but wonder whether you have a conflict of interest here. At the very least, your arguments don't make a lot of sense. You can fight about whether he has two sons or one, and I don't care personally, but you cannot just whitewash an article. Drmies (talk) 18:51, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 可愛い If you want to make grammatical corrections or sourced changes to that are not whitewashing, please do. Jim1138 talk 01:02, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, Jim113 after reviewing all my previous proposed edits I have come up with new edits and more detailed explanations to them.

1. Corrected grammar and lexical mistakes in the article.

2. Added information on new investments and personal life. All of which are supported by reliable sources and written from NPOV.

3. Changed the section name from “Attempts to purchase bank” to “Attempt to purchase bank” as there was only one attempt by Prokopenya’s VP Capital to acquire two banks. Removed incorrect details such as the false information that Grigory Guselnikov is a business partner of Viktor Prokopenya (see here - https://naviny.by/article/20170803/1501773402-prokopenya-peredumal-pokupat-ukrainskiy-sberbank). The deleted commentary bears no relevance to the attempted acquisition of the banks.

4. Changed the name of section from “Criticism and controversies” to “Critics and controversies”.

5. Organised information to “Critics and controversies” section, corrected the inconsistencies added more controversies. More details below:

а) Deleted discussion regarding education. Prokopenya's attitude to education was questioned by one person in a Facebook post. He is a guy who positions himself as an expert in EU and US education and has blog about it, but has only 137 followers in Facebook. Looks like his main goal to start this discussion was to increase the popularity of his blog. Apparently this FB discussion which he started was published word by word by a small business media - probusiness.by. You can google translate it and read - it is literally duplication of the facebook discussion. Focused more on educational institutions rather than Prokopenya. Which does not make it a reliable source to be included in Wiki. If you still think that, we need to include it. Let’s discuss, but I have huge concerns it is compliant to the rules, as in this case, we need to pull here all the FB discussion, which resulted in some media attention to it.

b) Edits regarding dispute regarding the IT and cryptocurrencies. Added more details to the story. Added more critics by other experts. Added the fact on public debates arrangement and S. Chaly subsequent refusal.

c) Moved information re. Prokopenya’s Instagram to “Honours and Awards”. Deleted commentary re. tits. Wiki is not the place to write about ‘tits’. Hope you will not blame me of whitewashing as the result.

d) Piece re. restaurant. I think this should be deleted, as I have done so previously. This information is non sence. It is neither critics of restaurant nor critics of Prokopenya. I did not delete it so far, but I want to ask your opinion about that. Do you think this information is relevant? Similarly, with the case of the education debate, I struggle to see the relevance. Should every facebook conversion of a person be included in wikipedia? Here is what we have in wikipedia now:

In June, 2018, Viktor Prokopenya commented the opening of the restaurant nearby Kurapaty. According to him, the restaurant should be closed, even not by the state, but by the owner, and all socially responsible Belarusians should boycott all restaurants owned by the owner.[32]

e) Added the latest criticism of Prokopenya’s initiative regarding the death penalty abolishment in Belarus. This is an important public discussion to be included in this section.

6. Ensured NPOV version re. Prokopenya’s detention. The use of “arrest” and “detention” as legal terms was discussed in the media and by lawyers. There even were commentaries on this particular situation by a top attorney, who confirmed, that from the legal standpoint it is not correct to use term “arrest” and “arrested” see here https://udf.by/news/main_news/170652-istoriya-s-udaleniem-kontenta-novye-podrobnosti.html. The attorney I. Pankov on this particular situation was saying that “arrest” is a criminal punishment. And the criminal punishment can be applied only in the result of court sentence in the result of criminal case consideration. That is why, using term “arrest” in the situation, when there is not court sentence is not admissible. Need to note that as one of the measures of pre-trial measure there can be “home arrest”, but as far as I’m aware this measure was not applicable to Prokopenya.”. I double checked it myself, and my legal education was of help. Under Art. 48 of Belarus Criminal Code - “arrest” is the punishment, applicable to a person, committed a crime (http://pravo.by/document/?guid=3871&p0=hk9900275). Prokopenya did not commit crime, there was no court sentence finding him guilty and penalising him for crime. He was detained for the period of preliminary investigation, which ended without court case and punishment. So mentioning words “arrest”, “arrested” may be regarded as implication, that Prokopenya has committed a crime.

Then I have checked the publications and indeed, some of them use wrong word “arrest”, but these are minority. Most of media outlets use correct term - “detained” instead of “arrested” and there are no reasons why Wikipedia page should be different in this regard: https://news.tut.by/economics/441486.html http://uaport.net/news/by/t/1504/03/7791099 https://naviny.by/new/20150403/1428060300-v-minske-zaderzhan-izvestnyy-it-biznesmen-viktor-prokopenya https://www.dw.com/ru/it-%D1%81%D1%84%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B0-%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%82-%D0%BC%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BC-%D0%B1%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%83%D1%81%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B9-%D1%8D%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B8/a-46171605

Finally, I don’t see the difference from a “whitewashing” standpoint - arrest and detention are the same, however this strikes my lawyer’s eye and I do not want to see anybody saying later that there are such kind of mistakes in the article I’ve edited.

7. Deleted wrong and duplicated information on “street bail”. There is legally correct statement, that Prokopenya was released on bail. Street bail is a legally incorrect term that is not relevant in this situation.

8. Deleted the information that Prokopenya lost 20 kg. It is not relevant for Wikipedia article about a living person. In fact it is tabloid style information, like edits regarding “tits” earlier.

9. Added missing information regarding the reasons why the media were requested by Prokopenya’s lawyers to amend the information regarding detention. There were numerous mistakes in these articles. “Arrest” instead of “detention”, the same mistake, as was in this article. Some articles were using words “jail” and “prison”, while in accordance with Belarus law, this term can be used only when the person is sentenced to punishment. Some articles used word “charged”, which means absolutely different procedure in countries on common law, when charge is brought officially by the judge, while in Belarus a person can be in pre-trial detainment for a year and longer without court decision. See these commentaries of lawyer in this media publication - https://udf.by/news/main_news/170652-istoriya-s-udaleniem-kontenta-novye-podrobnosti.html.

10. Deleted the mention that the Belarussian media were denounced by the Polish-based channel BelsatTV, because this is relevant, not to Prokopenya's media relations, but to the relationship between Belarussian media and BelSat. Looks like this is promotion of Belsat.

11. The story on detention and media reactions was moved to the "Critics and controversies" section, as this better fits into this section, due to its controversial nature. Moreover, the current wording of this section was incorrect because the word 'arrest' was not used in correct legal context, as previously explained above.

Dear Jim1138, to some extent, I can understand your reaction to my previous edits, when you see that a lot of the information in the critique section is deleted. I thought that some of my edits were reasonable, and thought my explanations were sufficient. I'm new to Wiki, please help me become a good editor. I specialise on Belarus and Belarusian biographies and I have dedicated a lot of time and efforts in making my changes, improve this article and my skills as Wiki editor. I was a bit disappointed, when last time you cancelled all my edits without explanations. I want to be neutral, which is why I also spend time time to find more criticism and I have expanded the section of criticism for now. Please do not criticize my work without justification and do not falsely accuse me.

Before you decide to cancel any of my edits, please provide your thorough arguments. I believe that all my edits are compliant with Wikipedia rules, best practices and all my edits are applicable. Thank you. 可愛い (talk) 15:55, 29 November 2018 (UTC)


 * You are obviously Prokopenya marketologist hired to whitewash his reputation. This is a major problem in your edits. Perhaps you have changed your account, I think that IP check should be made to establish whether this guy is editing from the same IP of previous edit warrior - eLindas. I cannot find reasonable explanation for very active previous editor ELindas suddenly stopping editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.222.84.189 (talk) 07:42, 11 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Dear 195.222.84.189. You have cancelled most of my edits in the article without due explanation. Your accusations calling me  a “marketologist” and of whitewashing the article are very serious. You must  submit evidence to support your accusations. I specialise on biographies  of the living who have connections to Belarus and Russia, so far I have made edits to over 40 biographies, including Prokopenya’s. Before making any edits to the Prokopenya article, I’ve researched and  spent a lot of time editing this article. I have also taken  time to carefully explain each of my edits in previous comment. When editing, I respect the work of other Wiki editors and I would like you to respect mine. I ask you to respect my efforts too and make detailed comments, rather than deleting most of my edits without any  justification. I see that you are a beginner. Wiki rules say that we need to help beginners, rather than criticize them. And I really want you to improve so I posted some recommendations and links to relevant quotes to your discussion page. I will return all my edits. Justifications are listed in my previous comment on this talk page. If you continue to roll back my edits without detailed justification re. every edit you make or propose, I will be forced to bring up the issue of your vandalism withthe administrators. Please, see Vandalism All your justified changes to the article will be very welcome. Thank you! 可愛い (talk) 13:30, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I initiated SPI for you. Next thing would be administrator's board.
 * 1)You never even read the sources before editing the article. As you insert fake information about Prokopenya being the best taxpayer of Belarus. The source itself says - best taxpayer of Minsk. You never added sources which state "best taxpayer of Belarus".
 * 2) deletions of well-sourced information from Vice news, Deutsche Welle are not acceptable.
 * 3) You edit the article without any discussion or even trying to find any consensus.
 * 4) You were warned about edit warring, but continue to edit without any discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Belbrabas (talk • contribs) 17:29, 13 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Dear 195.222.84.189 and contribs I have provided proper explanations for each of my edits in previous comments. The rollback of all my edits can be qualified as vandalism – the current version contains many factual inaccuracies and unimportant information. I have not received a detailed explanation of the cancellation of my edits. Does this mean you agree with my edits? I will wait with my edits for you to have a chance to engage in discussion with me regarding particular wordings if you have goods grounds to disagree with them. If you do not do this, I will proceed with my edits. 可愛い (talk) 10:25, 20 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Dear 可愛い your biased removal of contributions to the articles may qualify to this as well. You may of course proceed, but at least you were warned by administrator Drmies. Information is supported by reliable third party sources. Please read the rules, the information should be supported by reliable sources. Your intimate knowledge of some facts predates your connection to Prokopenya. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.222.84.189 (talk) 12:25, 21 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Dear 195.222.84.189 I’m happy that finally the discussion on the merits has started, though you keep accusing  me of being “marketologist” without good reason. I am a big wikipedia fan, due to its neutrality and factuality principles. Wikipedia is not a place for somebody’s “marketologists”, as well as it is not a place for somebody’s haters. Everything should be as neutral and as factual as possible. I am very sensitive when I see any of my edits being edited or cancelled by somebody, who doesn’t dig into the subject as I do. I read about people in the public eye in Belarus everyday and update wikipedia accordingly for hundreds of them. It’s my hobby, I like and enjoy. Prokopenya has a big media presence, so I’ve read a lot about him before editing. 可愛い (talk) 09:50, 6 January 2019 (UTC)


 * What is the basis of your allegations? You again start accusing  me of being biased. I use information only from open sources. All edits are well explained in line with Wiki rules. Let’s discuss exact sentences. Please tell me what exactly you think is wrong in my version and let’s agree on the correct statement.


 * You are blaming me again without evidence. That is not the way you should do that in wikipedia. Again, wikipedia is not a place to post somebody’s marketologists as you wrote, but it also not a place to post somebody’s haters. I value the reputation of my account a lot, which is why I use correct, wikipedia style articles for the purposes of proving my facts. As I wrote before, I am a belarussian lawyer, I lived most of my live in Belarus, I read the news everyday. My knowledge about this person is based purely on numerous publications in the media, which appear quite often. I don’t know Prokopenya personally, I have no conflict of interest about that, as well as I don’t know any of the people or have any relationship with the people, who’s pages in wikipedia I update.


 * All information I’ve added has links to open sources. All my edits are neutral. While many of edits you protect, looks like been added by Prokopenya’s hater and do not look neutral. Also I can see that you haven’t made any edits to wikipedia except the vandal ones for Prokopenya’s page, this clearly shows that you are a Prokopenya’s hater, you are not neutral and probably have a conflict of interest.  If you hate Prokopenya you are free to use any other websites to express your attitude. I am sorry, but wikipedia is not the place for that. Also, you, like some newbies, mix neutrality for being someone’s marketologist. For example, I hate Stalin, but I if I edit his page - I can’t that write he is the worst person in the world - I need to write the facts about his actions in a neutral style. Writing about him in a neutral style doesn’t make me ‘marketologist’ of Stalin. Being somebody’s hater is the same big sin in wikipedia as being somebody else’s “marketologist”. Thus, please be neutral and communicate professionally. I love wikipedia and wikipedia is my beloved hobby, same as for thousands of great people around the world. It has very clear rules and nobody is allowed to violate them.


 * I suggest that we get back to my version and you can propose your edits here - we can discuss them and get them into wikipedia. Thank you for being constructive.


 * Please read the rules, the information should be supported by reliable sources. Wikipedia  is not social media or a place to promote a company or product or person, or a place to advocate for or against anyone or anything. WP:NOT


 * According to the rule WP:BLPCRIME material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies Neutral point of view (NPOV), Verifiability (V), No original research (NOR). 可愛い (talk) 09:57, 6 January 2019 (UTC)


 * 93.125.107.64 (talk) A week has passed since the last submission of my rationale for editing the article. I would like to sum up one particular result of our discussion. I carefully studied the sources on which I relied on when editing, and I am absolutely confident in the validity of the amendments I proposed, as I carefully studied all the questions.


 * I am returning my edits today. I will also add new information to the page about Prokopenyas investing in the crypto exchange currency.com.


 * In future I suggest discussing all your suggestions and arguments on the discussion page before changing the text. I will also pre-suggest all changes on the talk page. Thank you! 可愛い (talk) 20:40, 15 January 2019 (UTC)


 * You are just pushing your POV and you are obviously connected to Prokopenya since on 15th of January he launched his crypt-exchange in Belarus. That's why your timing is such. Because you are the only one who is pushing such POV - you shoul discuss first before making any changes. Thank you for understanding the rules of Wikipedia. 195.222.84.189 (talk) 09:23, 16 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I am not connected to Prokopenya, I don’t know him personally and I don’t have a conflict of interest as I said earlier.


 * You are connected to Prokopenya - you are one of the guys who have personal conflict with him and all you want is to vandalise his page.


 * You are not contributing to wikipedia to any other pages, you are not interested in making wikipedia great - all you want is to vandalise Prokopenya’s page against wikipedia policy.


 * Respect the wikipedia rules.


 * If you don’t agree with something - post on the comments page - let's discuss and ammed.


 * I’ve explained you why your edits are vandalism and are not compliant with wikipedia rules. 可愛い (talk) 10:17, 16 January 2019 (UTC)


 * 195.222.84.189 So you can’t do that, I’m waiting for your arguments for each fact that was canceled. I will make a complaint to your vandalism. 可愛い (talk) 15:04, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Unimportant information

 * Is it important for Wikipedia that Prokopenya lost 20 pounds in detainment? Criticism of the Swiss University from one unknown person on Facebook for Wikipedia is not an authoritative source of information. This looks more like a promotion of this person’s blog. I deleted edits regarding the discussion that “brains are new tits”. Apologies, men, but it is not a proper angle for a Wikipedia article. 可愛い (talk) 10:17, 20 December 2018 (UTC)


 * 1) Why are you so sensitive to arrest section? I may agree on deletion of the passage on loss of weight, but then the information on exact charges and information on his business partner Komok should be restored. I believe this section could be extended very well - there are so many reliable third party sources.
 * 2) discussion on education and "brains are the new tits" are events which were widely covered by various media (third party sources). There are numerous sources on these events including tut.by (its subsidiary probusiness), dev.by, naviny.by, udf.by. If such events, which you believe are not suitable for Wiki, received so wide attention of the media, then they are important enough for inclusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.222.84.189 (talk) 12:21, 21 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Going back to the discussion:

(1) you agreed to delete mention of re. weight loss. Please make sure that all the information included in wikipedia should be encyclopedically significant. Weight gain and weight loss is not relevant in this instance.

(2) you propose restoring info re. accusations. I am sure, if somebody writes in your native language with mistakes that this would hurt your eyes. For me, as a lawyer, any incorrect legal languages hurts my eyes as well. So, to clarify, you can’t use the  “charges” in this case, you should use accusation or allegation. Being charged is when a person is brought to court and has official final statement of his wrongdoing, before that everything is an accusation or allegation. The information about the allegations is already there, I’m not deleting information about that;

(3) you propose adding information re. Komok - interesting point, let’s elaborate on this.

Why do you say that Komok is Prokopenya’s business partner. I see that he was a manager in one of Prokopenya’s companies - https://news.tut.by/economics/525909.html, but not a business partner.

We can not link Komok’s case to Prokopenya’ accusations because of the the Supreme Court ruling, confirming that there was no evidence, proving that Komok’s illegal activity was a group activity. So there are no facts to link Komok to Prokopenya’s accusations. Here are the links - http://court.gov.by/ru/justice/press_office/fb7fa8403160fbcc.html ; https://news.tut.by/economics/521397.html

We need to be very careful with any accusations and base them on the facts.

Wikipedia should include only real facts. I think with the changes, proposed by me this section is neutral, factual and in line with wikipedia policy. 可愛い (talk) 09:52, 6 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Prokopenya was charged along with Komok with a crime committed in organized group. This is a fact confirmed by reliable third party sources. I don't care if the case was later split into two cases. If you want to publish the details about split of the case - you are welcome, but please be careful. Belbrabas (talk) 08:15, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 May 2019
1) I propose to delete this information. This is not an important fact for Wikipedia. Restaurant nearby Kurapaty In June, 2018, Viktor Prokopenya commented the opening of the restaurant nearby Kurapaty. According to him, the restaurant should be closed, not by the state, but by the owner, and all socially responsible Belarusians should boycott all restaurants owned by the owner. 2) add new 2019 year rating: the 9th in 2019 https://ej.by/rating/business2019/prokopenia.html 3) to change: Prokopenya has 5 million followers on Instagram. 4) to change: Prokopenya is married and has three sons. OlgaSvetlova (talk) 08:32, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Izno (talk) 02:26, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Edit fully protected
Despite partial protection, there are vandal facts on the page. User:Kiramotto writes complete nonsense:
 * Victor Prokopenya is a citizen of Great Britain, USA, Israel and St. Kitts Nevis at the same time.
 * Prokopenya lives in Drozdy, on Tikhaya Street 4.
 * Viktor Prokopenya opened a private school in Belarus where his two sons' grandchildren are studying.
 * Prokopenya, with the personal support of Lukashenko, opened a university for training specialists in the IT industry. There was not enough money for teachers from Harvard, as Prokopen promised, therefore they invited Belarusian and Russian mentors.
 * Decree No. 8 is a pitiful attempt by the state to use destructive IT initiatives to launch the country's economy. First, that they show the utter lack of understanding by the elites of what they are doing. Secondly, they hinder the development of other sectors of the economy in the country and reduce the level of business quality in the country. Prokopenya, promoting his own interests, made the country forget about improving the business climate. His actions reduced the position of Belarus in the Doing business-2019 rating.[83]

Administrator should look carefully at this page. Glazomer (talk) 07:31, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Pending-protection-unlocked.svg Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. &#8209;&#8209; El Hef  ( Meep? ) 13:16, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Let's add the transcription of the name and surname
Let's add the transcription of the name or/and surname  User cruiser Ben (talk) 12:33, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Unhealthy activity
and, please look at the recent history of edits done by new accounts. This still seems more like a vandalizing party than a constructive discussion of the content of the article. —ELindas (talk) 16:23, 22 March 2024 (UTC)


 * I have warned again about making unsourced contributions. Daniel Case (talk) 02:02, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I concur. It seems like a series of edits that has removed positive sourced information and added negative unsourced information. WP:QUACK!
 * Info that has been blanked with little to no reason given:
 * Legal and Social Initiatives blanked:
 * removed information about charity foundation
 * Removed demand to stop violence
 * Recognition section blanked
 * Professorship section blanked
 * Legal and Social initiatives section blanked
 * Removed information about the company Viaden and blanked Professorship.
 * Unsourced and negative contributions, much of which alleges criminal behavior:
 * "addiction to betting on sports"
 * "actively used tax evasion"
 * "laundering company"
 * "weaken Belarus"
 * changed "condemned violence and donated to victims" to "donated to injureds in illegal protests."
 * "has been trying to get into the role of a professor"
 * FPTI (talk) 16:45, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * These malicious edits are subtle and discreet, they are introduced in tiny amounts, sometimes even with refs, but the sources they lead to do not say anything claimed in the edits. Obviously, these edits are intended to denigrate. They have to be manually fished out and reverted, it's very time-consuming, and if you don't monitor the article for a day, they just pour in... I suppose we should increase this page's protection level. –ELindas (talk) 17:08, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * These malicious edits are subtle and discreet, they are introduced in tiny amounts, sometimes even with refs, but the sources they lead to do not say anything claimed in the edits. Obviously, these edits are intended to denigrate. They have to be manually fished out and reverted, it's very time-consuming, and if you don't monitor the article for a day, they just pour in... I suppose we should increase this page's protection level. –ELindas (talk) 17:08, 29 March 2024 (UTC)